can we add such feature? synchronized(null) ==> i.e NO-OP

[mw]

On Friday, 26 August 2022 at 19:47:18 UTC, Paul Backus wrote:
> On Friday, 26 August 2022 at 19:26:12 UTC, mw wrote:
>> On Friday, 26 August 2022 at 18:51:06 UTC, Paul Backus wrote:
>>> Since `innerBlock` has access to `foo`'s parameters via its 
>>> context, you should not need to do any complicated 
>>> refactoring.
>>
>> Yes, it's the same solution I end up with.
>>
>> However, I still think synchronized(null) ==> NOOP is a better 
>> semantics than NPE.
>>
>> Then I don't even need such innerBlock(), and the if-else.
>
> I guess another possibility is something like this:
>
> ```d
> void foo(...) {
>     scope Object fakeLock = new Object; // allocated on stack
>     Object lock = condition ? realLock : fakeLock
>
>     synchronized (lock) {
>         // code here
>     }
> }
> ```
>
> Since `fakeLock` is local to the function, synchronizing on it 
> should be effectively a no-op.


Thanks.

Is there any documentation for creating class object on the stack?

I only found this discussion:

https://forum.dlang.org/thread/srbzvjezicpuhxhzzoyb@forum.dlang.org?page=2


Also I want confirmation that this scope usage will not be 
deprecated in the future.